A Grandchild cannot claim any share while the parent is still alive ordered Delhi High Court while dismissing a civil suit filed by one Kritika Jain against her father Rakesh Jain and aunt Neena Jain, seeking partition of a property in Delhi.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that the property, purchased by her (Kritika) late grandfather Pawan Kumar Jain, devolved solely on his widow and children under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
The Court observed that Kritika, being a granddaughter, did not qualify as a Class I heir while her father was alive.
The High Court concluded that she had no legal right over the property, rejecting her plea that it was ancestral in nature.
The Court emphasised that after 1956, property inherited by Class I heirs becomes their absolute property and not joint family property.
Consequently, the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for disclosing no cause of action.
In an exclusive conversation with iTV Network, Advocate Vineet Jindal, who appeared for defendants, said that this judgment is important as it clears a widespread misconception among the public that grandchildren automatically acquire rights over their grandparents’ property even when their own parents (the Class-I heirs) are alive.
The Court has categorically reaffirmed that such claims have no legal foundation under the Hindu Succession Act, Jindal added.
He said that any further appeal by the plaintiff is unlikely to succeed, given the consistent line of Supreme Court on this issue.
Background
The suit was filed by Kritika Jain against her father Rakesh Jain and aunt Neena Jain, in which she sought a one-forth share.
She argued that the property purchased by her grandfather, late Pawan Kumar Jain, was ancestral and that she was entitled to it.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
